“Naive” seems to be the buzzword of the week.
Jessie DaSilva, a good friend of mine and fellow journalism student, wrote a widely read blog post this week about the changing face of journalism.
Aside from the content of the post, if you read the comments, you’ll notice that one of the greatest criticisms of her opinions as expressed in the post is naivete. Some of these people make good content points as well — but underlying it is the sentiment that she’s too young to know any better.
One of the great things about my internship this summer has been the chance to meet a lot of people, some of them old-timers, who still believe in journalism, who say that it’s the best thing that ever happened to them.
So what do you call those people? Do you call them delusional or say that they have their heads stuck in the sand? Do you liken them to the band playing as the Titanic sank?
Whatever you call them, I bet you don’t call them naive — because they have decades of experience behind them.
It’s time we recognize the naivete argument for what it is: ageist. Because it’s wrong to say that someone’s opinion doesn’t count just because he/she is under 30.
We are all scared about the future of journalism. I’m scared of finding a job that gives me health insurance, while others worry about feeding their families. It’s depressing and terrifying.
But don’t call me naive just because despite all of that, I still decided to go into journalism. I come from a family of journalists, and I’ve seen this all firsthand. I know the stress that late nights, budget cuts, deadlines and stressful newsrooms can bring. But I’m choosing to be optimistic about the industry. If that doesn’t work out, I’ll move onto something else: I’ll teach, go to law school or do something else that will pay the bills. But I want to give journalism a try first because I think it can make the world a better place.
Also, I try not to criticize people who are upset with journalism as “old-media types” or “disillusioned” because I don’t think that’s all-encompassing or fair, and it’s often stereotypical. There are plenty of young, bright-eyed journalists who have come to feel that way, too. These people have experiences that have gotten them to where they are. They have a right to their beliefs about journalism.
I expect to be afforded that same respect.
I think it’s easy to call people — young people — naive when you don’t understand their motivations.
It’s a lot harder to understand persistent optimism in the face of acknowleged adversity.
I’ll close with a comment on Jessie’s post from Andrew Tan, also a friend and former journalism student:
“Reading all all these comments trying to dismiss DaSilva as naive I can’t help but feel a bit disturbed.
To try to dismiss anyone, especially a journalist, as naive is ridiculous. The entire profession is based on the notion that there is a ‘Truth’ out there that journalists can always get closer to.
While such a thing seems like such a small light in such a great distance, the faith that that distance can be conquered and that light can be brightened is what keeps journalism going. To try to dismiss someone as too naive to be jaded is the antithesis of the purpose of this profession.”
11 responses so far ↓
Wenalway // July 4, 2008 at 1:58 am |
I think you need to read the post again and to take the context into consideration.
Telling people to “stop whining” after layoffs is classless. (Full disclosure: I recently bashed one person who was laid off at a different paper. But he posted photos bashing his employer. Different story.)
Anyway, I think twentysomethings who believe they are going to “save” journalism are in for a rude awakening. And I don’t begrudge you wanting respect, but when people of your age group fail to realize the opportunities you have, then I find it hard to take your side. Until around 2000, many bigger papers weren’t hiring too many 22-year-olds.
So you can keep claiming you’re so much smarter and tech-savvy, but there’s more to the story. If you guys were as good as you say you are, you’d get that side.
Hilary Lehman // July 4, 2008 at 2:14 am |
I never said I was smarter or more tech-savvy than the experienced journalists out there. To the contrary, I have a lot to learn from them.
I also never claimed I could save journalism. I only want to be part of the effort.
And I specifically chose not to comment on the content of Jessie DaSilva’s post — I thought it would dilute my argument, which is that you can’t completely discount her points based on naivete, whether or not you disagree with her.
Wenalway // July 4, 2008 at 2:56 am |
I can discount her points, though, just as I discount the points of many twentysomethings.
That’s because I’ve had this argument time and time again, and it generally boils down to people who are getting opportunities they likely don’t deserve trying to claim they are so much smarter. So although the “you” may not mean you personally, it does fit many other people in the same category.
John Zhu // July 4, 2008 at 3:53 am |
Hilary, if a veteran with decades of experience wrote the same thing that Jessica did, I would not hesitate to say that he/she is naive or has their head stuck in the sand. I was among those who commented that her post comes off naive. I said that not because of the passion she expressed for journalism. Almost everyone in this business is passionate about journalism; it’s the reason why there are still so many dedicated journalists at newspapers despite the crap they have to put up with. Some, like me, find out after a while that passion alone isn’t enough to outweigh the negatives of the business and they get out, while for others that passion is still enough. It’s different for everyone, and that’s fine. In fact, I applaud Jessica for her passion and said so in one of my comments.
I said Jessica’s post was naive because of how easily and quickly she seemed to buy the company line about the layoffs and the plan for change, which is especially disturbing for a journalist in training, since journalists are supposed to be able to see through the BS and get at the truth. Let me ask you this: If you were writing a story about layoffs at a factory and the manager of the factory, who just handed out 10 pink slips, tells you that he has a plan that’s the right step for turning it around, would you buy his story hook, line, and sinker? Or would you do some critical analysis and research and investigate his claims before praising him? And considering that he was in charge of the previous direction of the factory which led to the financial disaster that cost 10 people their jobs, would you call him a hero?
Yes, in some cases claims of naivety has to do with age, but it’s more about experience. You can be in this business for 20 years and be fortunate enough to not go through a layoff, which could make you just as naive as an intern who has never been through one.
The comments on Jessica’s blog show a definite split along age lines, with veterans mostly taking issue with her fawning over an editor who just laid off people and younger journalists mostly dismissing those criticisms as coming from dinosaurs despite not knowing any of the people who offered those criticisms. What’s more disturbing is that despite having almost 100 comments as of now, there is almost no substantive discussion of the actual criticisms. Instead of the two sides reaching across the battle line to discuss their viewpoints, they are pretty much just deepening the line in the sand, bunkering down in their respective corners, and trading verbal barbs. From that perspective, it seems that the “dinosaurs” and the “naive kids” are more alike than either would admit.
Daniel Victor // July 4, 2008 at 10:01 am |
Hilary directly calls out people practicing ageism, and then the first comment wildly generalizes about twenty-somethings?
Bunker down, everyone. No working together, people. Forget about those ideas for new reporting methods and sustainable business models. Top priority: There are enemies within!
Daniel Victor // July 4, 2008 at 10:07 am |
I just saw John Zhu’s comment. That last paragraph especially is right on.
Hilary Lehman // July 4, 2008 at 10:09 am |
@John Zhu: I’ve always found it disturbing that a profession that claims to be one of communicators communicates so poorly internally. I find the comment thread on DaSilva’s blog incredibly upsetting.
I saw that blog post as praise of someone’s willingness to do something to change journalism more than the specific plan itself.
If we’re going to talk about naivete, I think her main naivete was expecting that journalists would take her post considering the good intent with which she wrote it — she’s passionate about journalism.
I don’t think she’s naive at all about that now.
But I think you’ve made several good points, John. I would like to reiterate that I do understand how hard the environment is right now and that I know it’s a sensitive and scary time for newspapers.
Why everyone should be ashamed of the infamous comment thread | By Daniel Victor // July 4, 2008 at 10:15 am |
[...] Zhu had a great comment on an entry by Hilary Lehman: The comments on Jessica’s blog show a definite split along age lines, with veterans mostly [...]
Wenalway // July 4, 2008 at 11:44 am |
Daniel:
Those aren’t wild generalizations, though. Not too long ago, most newspapers were claiming people “needed experience.” That has changed, but not for the right reasons.
In my book, that means twentysomethings are unqualified for the jobs they get. The standards have been lowered, not raised.
That being said, I do think it’s positive that good people don’t have to waste time and skills at tiny, terrible papers. But let’s get one thing straight: That has changed only because newspapers want to pay less. I’ve read all the rationalizations and the B.S. from newspaper execs. Those sound much like the chantings that led this intern to say “You go girl!” (Comma missing from original cheerleading.)
Mallory Colliflower // July 10, 2008 at 1:37 am |
@Wenalway
“But let’s get one thing straight: That has changed only because newspapers want to pay less. ”
I really don’t believe that newspapers WANT to pay less. All logic and recent events would lead to the obvious conclusion that newspapers HAVE TO pay less. We’ve all been an audience to staffs being cut, revenues being down, etc. As newspapers are dying, why would they “cut off their nose to spite their face?”
Why everyone should be ashamed of the infamous comment thread | blogHarrisburg // July 10, 2008 at 11:05 pm |
[...] “my side” with all of its counterproductive name-calling. John Zhu had a great comment on an entry by Hilary Lehman: The comments on Jessica’s blog show a definite split along age lines, with veterans mostly [...]